What is the basis of the 20 Millisv rule and the 20 year proclamation? could it be current politics instead of health risk?

7:31 pm April 24, 2012

CrisisMaven wrote:

Look: Why don't people, by and large, not settle in desserts? Because they lack one ingredient: water, there. Why should people return to those "ghost towns" in living memory? They won't. Why would anyone, 21 years from now, want to settle there? Mark my words: not in a hundred years, rather only when most people will have FORGOTTEN why not to settle there!!!

3:35 am April 25, 2012

J. Shriver wrote:

...unless in 20 years we are finally cured of our "radiophobia" that has led us to fear radiation more than all other environmental hazards. Radiation around Fukushima right now is already lower than natural background radiation in many *inhabited* places on earth. It's ridiculous, and I'm greatly disappointed in the Japanese falling for green propaganda.

3:25 pm April 25, 2012

JimHopf wrote:

Partial meltdown? There was a complete meltdown of not one but three large reactors, the worst conceivable event for a non-Soviet nuclear plant.

And yet, there were no deaths, no projected measurable public health impacts in the future. Meanwhile, fossil-fueled power generation (worldwide) causes ~1000 deaths every single day (along with global warming). Despite this, the Japanese seem to be hell bent on replacing their nuclear generation with fossil generation that is orders of magnitude worse in terms of health risk and environmental impact.

The statement that people will not be able to return to three small villages for several decades seems to be based on an assumption that no actions will be taken. I thought they were going to spend tens of billions to clean these areas up (by removing topsoil, etc..).

What is the basis of the 20 mSv/yr rule? What is the basis of the 1 mSv/yr goal/rule would be a better question. No clear statistical evidence of negative health impacts until the dose rate reaches 100 mSv/yr. Thus, the 20 mSv limit is a factor of five lower than the level at which health effects are clearly seen. Why would one establish a limit that is a factor of 100 lower than that required for observable health impacts? An annual dose rate of 1 mSv/yr is also significantly lower than what most people get from common/background sources. Under that rule, nowhere on earth would be "inhabitable". Of course, the rule is selectively applied to radiation exposure from the nuclear plant releases only...

Why would people ever resettle these areas. I dunno, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now clean, vibrant, bustling cities with millions of people living there. No health impacts from lingering bomb fallout are observed or expected. Perhaps many people won't want to resettle, but there certainly won't be much (rational) reason not to want to resettle, especially after a couple decades, as well as cleanup. There would not be any significant health risk to the resettlers.

5:30 pm April 25, 2012

Justice wrote:

Japanese government, as well as media, has ever preferred "stricter" or "one-digit-lower" goal, whenever safety issues are at stake. This is partly because they are clean freaks, but mostly because they have no brain to imagine extra cost to keep up with that absurd goal could be much better used. The nation somehow rejects thinking about marginal cost and benefit. Good for Americans and Chinese!

11:20 pm April 25, 2012

Kit P wrote:

JimH

I work in the nuclear industry and I agree that there is a lot of fear mongering about radiation. That is not reason to apply the same tactic about fossil fuel used in power plant. If you read all the studies about air pollution, there is one obvious conclusion. Every time you add a fossil plant to supply all electric-houses that is no longer use biomass or fossil fuels for heating and cooking, air quality gets better.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Japan Real Time

Japan Real Time is a newsy, concise guide to what works, what doesn’t and why in the one-time poster child for Asian development, as it struggles to keep pace with faster-growing neighbors while competing with Europe for Michelin-rated restaurants. Drawing on the expertise of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires, the site provides an inside track on business, politics and lifestyle in Japan as it comes to terms with being overtaken by China as the world’s second-biggest economy. You can contact the editors at japanrealtime@wsj.com